MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411738036 · doi:10.1177/11207000251346917

Prevalence of articular noise in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty with short stems

2025· article· en· W4411738036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frédéric Laude, ReSurg, Christian Matar, Sonia Ramos‐Pascual, Bethany Grew, Sonia Dubreil

Bibliographic record

VenueHip International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisArthroplastySurgeryTotal hip arthroplastyPhysical therapyOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To determine: (1) the prevalence of articular noise in primary ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) total hip arthroplasty (THA) using 2 different designs of short uncemented stems; (2) risk factors for noise; and (3) the impact of noise on quality of life (QoL), at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Methods: 70 patients (81 hips) that underwent primary CoC THA with either SMS or Minimax stems (Medacta, Switzerland) between 01 February 2015 and 31 December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical assessment included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and a questionnaire on articular noise. Regression analyses were performed to find associations with articular noise. Results: 64 patients (74 hips; 40 SMS, 34 Minimax) were available for clinical assessment at ⩾5 years. There were no significant differences between the SMS and Minimax groups in terms of postoperative WOMAC (93.5 ± 6.7 vs. 90.9 ± 11.8, p = 0.746) and mHHS (94.9 ± 12.7 vs. 95.7 ± 9.7, p = 0.641). The prevalence of articular noise was 23% (9 hips) in the SMS group and 24% (8 hips) in the Minimax group ( p = 1.000). Regression analyses revealed that presence of noise was associated with preoperative WOMAC (OR 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.10; p = 0.023), and tended to be associated with age (OR 0.96; 95%CI, 0.91–1.00; p = 0.060), cup diameter of 58–60 mm (OR 4.43; 95% CI, 0.86–23.44; p = 0.070), and head diameter of 36 mm (OR, 5.29; 95% CI, 0.86–38.10; p = 0.080). Impact of noise on QoL was low for both groups (1.0 ± 1.4 vs. 1.3 ± 2.2, p = 0.862). Conclusions: The present study on primary CoC THA reported an overall prevalence of articular noise of 24% for 2 designs of short stems. Clinical outcomes and satisfaction rates were high for most patients, with noise having little impact on QoL and no noise-related clinical complications being observed. Risk factors for articular noise may be better preoperative WOMAC, younger age, and larger femoral head and cup diameter.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHip InternationalSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207